Ok, but seen parts of it before in movies like Cube and Night of the Living Dead...

Rating: 6/10 (9 April 2004)

May contain spoilers...do not risk infection...
It was an ok film, but I was expecting more. The acting was fine. I like the empty shots of London and the way the infected were filmed faster, creating a chaotic effect.
But, I have seen this film before. Ok, pieces taken here and there from other films. A film where people get thrown into a place where there are few of them and then turn on each other, while trying to fight for the cause. It should be a sub-genre and it does get boring. For those who have seen Cube, people are stranded alone in a cube and have to work together to get out...and, of course, the cop who is supposed to be a good guy is the killer in the end, much like army people whom seem to be the ones who will help, become evil. I get really sick of seeing this plotline played over and over again. No group of men could possibly want to help others, with their guns and hormones...there is nothing for them but to rape women? I find this very hard to believe. It is like I had to suspend my disbelief over and over again. Annoying.
28 Days Later seems like a lot of films I have seen. First off, Night of the Living Dead, when people get stuck in a house and have to fend off zombies. Except, I don't think the people in this film are zombies and that was a bummer for me because I wanted to see crazy zombies not infected people! Anyhoo, this also reminded me of the werewolf film Dog Soldiers, where Scottish people in the army are fighting against getting infected with Lycanthropism. Of course, there are fights between these humans too. The empty London area reminded me of Vanilla Sky which was a better film, though not a zombie or horror film.
This movie has a lot of gaps in it. I wonder why monkeys and people were infected by this virus but not other animals? All the other animals seem fine. Is that supposed to be a metaphor that the Earth is better off without us? I am confused since many animals share a lot of the same genes that this infection would only infect primates. Why were scientists even making a "rage" virus? Is it a metaphor that activists that are supposed to be good in this film, yet bring about its destruction? Was another idea that Selene didn't trust others, but when she did, she suffered for her trust? It was sad to see her strong character change into a whiny mouse, having to have Jim save her. It just seemed so stereotyped for that to happen. I wanted to see Selene fight!
I was unsure if only the UK was infected, but I am positive I heard Selene say something about New York and Paris being infected before the TV stations stopped airing. Then I read on some reviews that only the UK had the virus. I am also confused with the idea all of the UK is infected, yet England and Scotland have the highlands and many other far out areas, so it makes the idea of an all consuming plague hard to imagine...but it could move easily to the rest of Europe if one person that was infected got on a boat and sailed over, infecting people as they went. See that is my problem. Paris is much closer to London then, let's say, Wick, Scotland...yet Paris wasn't infected? Doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
This film is worth a watch and is better than a lot of horror films out there, but doesn't live up to all the hype I heard about it. The characters and motivations are 3D, yet slowly slip into 2D stereotypes quickly. I was hoping for more. Those looking for gore won't find it, people looking for a great storyline will be left in the dust too. It would probably be a good rental or something to watch when you don't have anything else better to do.
6/10 Zombies